From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751588AbWHAOaV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:30:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751633AbWHAOaV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:30:21 -0400 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:12704 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751587AbWHAOaU (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:30:20 -0400 Message-Id: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> To: Bernd Schubert cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Jan-Benedict Glaw , Clay Barnes , Rudy Zijlstra , Adrian Ulrich , vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion In-Reply-To: Message from Bernd Schubert of "Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:14:37 +0200." <200607312314.37863.bernd-schubert@gmx.de> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 19) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:28:18 -0400 From: "Horst H. von Brand" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (inti.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.21.155]); Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:28:26 -0400 (CLT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bernd Schubert wrote: > On Monday 31 July 2006 21:29, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > The point is that it's quite hard to really fuck up ext{2,3} with only > > some KB being written while it seems (due to the > > fragile^Wsophisticated on-disk data structures) that it's just easy to > > kill a reiser3 filesystem. > Well, I was once very 'luckily' and after a system crash (*) e2fsck put > all files into lost+found. Sure, I never experienced this again, but I > also never experienced something like this with reiserfs. So please, stop > this kind of FUD against reiser3.6. It isn't FUD. One data point doesn't allow you to draw conclusions. Yes, I've seen/heard of ext2/ext3 failures and data loss too. But at least the same number for ReiserFS. And I know it is outnumbered 10 to 1 or so in my sample, so that would indicate at a 10 fold higher probability of catastrophic data loss, other factors mostly the same. > While filesystem speed is nice, it also would be great if reiser4.x would be > very robust against any kind of hardware failures. Can't have both. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513